Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

So Much For Moderate Islam

Indonesia's President Joko Widodo postponed a visit to Australia on Saturday after a mass protest in Jakarta that briefly turned violent as Muslim extremists pressed for the resignation of the capital's governor, a Christian they say insulted the Koran.

Widodo has faced criticism for failing to rein in hardline groups that had promised for weeks to bring tens of thousands onto the streets of the capital, and during Friday's protest his office said he was inspecting a rail project at the airport.

At a news conference after midnight on Friday, he blamed "political actors" for fanning popular anger over city Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, who is standing for re-election in February, competing with two Muslims for the job.

The governorship of the capital is a powerful position and one held by Widodo before he became president two years ago.

Widodo had planned to use his Nov. 6-8 visit to Australia to cement improving ties, with a focus on economic and maritime cooperation and efforts to counter Islamist militancy.

"Looking at the latest situation and condition in Indonesia that require the presence of the president, President Joko Widodo decided to postpone his scheduled state visit to Australia," a statement from his office said.

The protest against Purnama, the first ethnic Chinese to hold the position of Jakarta governor, was largely peaceful but in the evening the crowd grew restive and police restrained them with tear gas and water cannon fire.

One person died and more than 100 were injured in the violence, many of them police officers. Three vehicles were torched and 18 were damaged, national police spokesman Boy Rafli Amar told a news conference on Saturday.

Clashes broke out in a north Jakarta area where there are large communities of non-Muslims and about 15 people were arrested there for looting a minimart, Amar said.

Some Chinese-owned shops and restaurants were shuttered in northern Jakarta on Saturday, while security officers guarded a temple and a school, according to a resident.

A spokesman for the Islamic Defenders Front, a group that led the protest, denied responsibility for the violence and said the "provocateurs" were the police who fired tear gas.

The group may organize another protest if the legal process against Purnama for his Koran comments is not allowed to run its course, said Munarman, who goes by one name. "If the law is ignored ... then we will call for similar action."

Later, Reuters tells us what has Munarman and his fellow Islamists riled up:

About a dozen Muslim groups have accused Purnama of insulting Islam after he jokingly said his opponents had used a verse from the Koran to deceive voters. The verse implies that Muslims should not choose non-Muslims as leaders.

Police are investigating the case against Purnama, who has apologized for his remarks, insisting he was not criticizing the Koranic verse but those who used it to attack him.

Notice that droll “about a dozen Muslim groups” – I thought Indonesia was the place with the moderate, live and let live peaceful Muslims? I used to comment back in the day here at W4 on posts about Islam; holding up Indonesia as a model for the future and suggested that their brand of Islam, which was promoted by two large national organizations known as Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, might be a model for the rest of the Islamic world. Instead, it appears that more sinister (or normal?) Islamic forces are capturing the imagination of Indonesian youth and just like Islam around the world, we find increasing intolerance for other religions and violence at any perceived threats to any challenges to Islamic honor or ideology. It is all depressingly familiar.

An Islamic Reformation – In Reverse?

An interesting idea, in relation to these Indonesian protests, was expressed as follows by the blogger "Lion of the Blogosphere":

Islam is undergoing a reformation much like the Protestant Reformation, and just as the printing press was the key technology which unlocked the Protestant Reformation, the key technology this time is the Internet. The true meaning of the Koran and the Hadith is spreading, and unfortunately, the true meaning (based on an unbiased literal meaning of the texts) is very similar to what ISIS believes.

Reading what’s happening in Indonesia, this idea does seem to fit – those two large national organizations I mentioned earlier are often described as bureaucratic and hierarchical. Now with the internet and the ability for a charismatic preacher to set up a mosque easily in a large city like Jakarta, it makes sense that more and more Indonesians are being exposed to the passages in the Koran that we all know are problematic (i.e. they advocate violence against unbelievers, encourage jihad against Jews and Christians, etc.) The moderates, if they did ever exist in some form or fashion*, are now fighting a tough battle against the ‘radicals’ who are simply exposing more and more Indonesians to the words of the prophet. Not an encouraging development.

*What's kind of ironic is that the WSJ did an article just four years ago about how moderate Islamic preachers (some known as 'habib' - because they are a direct descendant of the Prophet) were starting to gain a foothold in Jakarta:

"The rise of youthful habib here—Mr. Almusawa is 39 years old—doesn't mean the struggle for the future of Islam in Indonesia is over. Hard-line groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front still abound, blockading 7-Eleven convenience stores for selling alcohol or vandalizing nightclubs during Ramadan, the Muslim fasting month."

Comments (42)

Here's what's even more sinister to me about that story: The law against "insulting Islam" is already on the books, and the police are investigating Purnama for his remarks. That means that whatever moderate forces are supposedly in charge in the government, nonetheless at least on paper the government has to be committed to investigating and punishing people for "insulting Islam." The "extremist" groups are apparently upset at the thought that Punarma won't be punished for his remarks, which sound ridiculously mild in any event. And that *is* the legal situation in Indonesia. It's illegal to "insult Islam."

That's actually an excellent point. Imagine how that law can now be used by the more hardline groups -- attend a Christian church and listen to a preacher say something like "salvation is only found in Jesus." Claim you are insulted by such a statement because true salvation is only found through following the prophet Muhammad. Or even worse the preacher encourages his flock to share the good news of the gospel with their Islamic neighbors -- I imagine he won't be preaching much longer!

Yep. And any of those examples would seem to be more "insulting" than what Purnama said. It's a law that shouldn't even be on the books. It's sharia, pure and simple. There's definitely a limit to how moderately Muslim any jurisdiction can be with that type of law in place, unless it is a dead letter and never enforced.

Before we get too exercised we should reflect on our role in all this. Back in the day it was doctrine that archly socially conservative Muslims (we call them Islamists now) were our allies against godless, atheistic Communism and later, after the fall of the Soviet Union, a bulwark against modernism in the Third world. Magazines like the Readers Digest pushed this propaganda and as recently as the turn of the century one would hear on Christian radio how the Saudis etc. were a positive influence in international bodies (this was while they were funding Wahhabi mosques round the world.

As with so much that's wrong with the world today we need to return to the sixties and Vietnam. In order to save Indonesia from Communism we built up the Indonesian military to the point of being a state within a state. Indonesia had a serious Communist and assorted leftist presence. In 1965 the military overthrew Sukarno and murdered hundreds of thousands of Communists, real or suspected, as well as leftists and moderate Muslims.

Now we are unhappy with what's happening in Indonesia.

Of course this recalls another anti-Communist adventure that didn't turn out so well:

Now Islamists are running amuck and the KGB (oops, FSB) is allied with one of our political parties - that all turned out well. With the exception of North Korea, Communism is a dead letter - leaving Afghanistan and Indonesia to work things out without our "help" may have been a better choice. Frogs, after all, need storks.

I mention all this to urge a little perspective and restraint. Life isn't linear.

With the exception of North Korea, Communism is a dead letter - leaving Afghanistan and Indonesia to work things out without our "help" may have been a better choice.

There is no especial reason to think that communism would now be a dead letter - without the vigorous defiance of it by US policy in many places, including West Germany and Turkey. And Indonesia and Afghanistan. If we had followed the prescriptions of the leftists of the 60's, the Berlin Wall would instead be considerably farther to the west - perhaps occupying the same location as Hitler's Atlantic Wall. This was common knowledge in the years after the fall of Russian communism.

The US has made plenty of mistakes, including propping up some evil men as dictators merely because they promised us their support. But defeating communism wasn't one of the mistakes.

We didn't "defeat" "Communism"; the Soviet empire self destructed (planned economies don't work and the regime was sclerotic under Brezhnev) with a push here and there - Afghanistan would have been better as an ongoing drain and having an Afghan Communist Party in power would have to be better then the Taliban (lots of whom would be in paradise without any expenditures on our part and perhaps OBL would have been among them). And BTW, no Soviet leader tried to install an authoritarian regime in this country.

T
Meanwhile the CCP has morphed into some sort of state capitalism and Vietnam, etc. have mellowed. Opposing the Soviet Empire in Europe was entirely proper, we did and containment worked. SE Asia and Latin America were different. Subsuming it all under the opposing communism thing is a mode of analysis doomed to spit out the wrong answers. Now you seem to have substituted "Islamism" for Communism.

Besides Vietnam broke the country and gave us Nixon and there is a line from "God and Man at Yale" that goes through him straight to Trump.

I am unable to understand how this "insult to Islam" law any different from laws against blasphemy that were common in Christian countries when they were actually Christian. Any polity would not allow its reigning pieties to be publicly mocked. That the Conservatives actually applaud that it is possible to safely mock Christianity in Western countries now earns them nothing but disdain both from the liberal mockers and the alt-right.
The Conservatives refuse to recall the history that freedom of expression never included the freedom to mock the ruling religion of the people. Even Gibbon did not dare to openly mock and had to resort to snide remarks.

how this "insult to Islam" law any different from laws against blasphemy that were common in Christian countries when they were actually Christian.

How about this difference: under Christian laws, you actually had to say something that is offensive to the religion, not just say something that gets people mad.

Here's an example: If I were to say "Muhammad married a 9-year old girl" in Saudi Arabia, that might well get me police attention. Even though there is NOT ONE SHRED of offense to Islam in saying what is a bare, flat truth.

Islam has - among many other pathologies - a strange inside-out treatment of Muhammad. On the one hand they get all huffy about Christianity's Trinity being contrary to the "God is one" tenet (which isn't true), but then they treat comments about Muhammad, or even pictures of him, as if they were comments or pictures of God. They use "blasphemy" accusations for comments about Muhammad, even though he is just a "prophet", not God.

Paul, a linear extrapolation takes present and past information and beliefs and uses them to predict the future. The problems should be obvious. Connecting past data points to now is analysis and can be disputed of course but is a different animal.

Opposing Stalinist expansion through a strong military presence and the creation of social democratic states with robust economies made sense. Distilling that into a reflexive anti-Communism that saw existential threats in every Third World leftist movement was a linear extrapolation .

Krugman's piece is unproblematic.

In the wake of Shelby County several states undertook measures that were specifically designed to prevent groups that usually vote Democratic from voting. This is all on the record if you bother to look.

It also seems to be the case that the Russian government was involved to hacking, altering, and releasing e-mails in an effort to help Trump and the Republican Party.

The letter from Comey is arguably an attempt by certain elements in the Congress and the FBI to effect a sort of soft coup.

"It also seems to be the case that the Russian government was involved to hacking, altering, and releasing e-mails in an effort to help Trump and the Republican Party."

The level of breath-taking ignorance on display in that statement alone is enough to get you banned from my threads -- I don't have time for your nonsense. John Schindler, who knows a thing or two about counter-intelligence, has been covering this story for years and explains that the Russians are happy to do business with either Trump or Clinton (hint -- the Russian's real interest is in promoting distrust in American institutions):

Back on topic -- you wonder why "this "insult to Islam" law any different from laws against blasphemy that were common in Christian countries when they were actually Christian." Good question -- maybe years of sectarian conflict (often violent) suggested to civil authorities that it was a good idea to give citizens free speech and association rights so they could follow their conscience when it came to speaking about matters of faith. That this would inevitably offend some people is the price we pay for living in free societies.

Jeffrey, I see the Publisher of the Observer is Jared Kushner. Enough said there.

Paul: You fail to read an initial comment closely and therefore respond with a non-sequitur, I call you on it and you respond with an insult. Rinse and repeat. I understand your embarrassment as you clearly didn't understand the difference between past and future but why get angry? WWJD?

Meanwhile neither of you wants to address the possibility that the subject of Jeff's post - Islamic extremism in Indonesia - is in part the result of poor policy decisions made before either of you were born.

You refuse to read an author because the publisher of his work has a bias? How do you find any non-biased sources -- Krugman is out given Slim's biases, the Post is out given Bezos' biases, etc. You are babbling now.

"Meanwhile neither of you wants to address the possibility that the subject of Jeff's post - Islamic extremism in Indonesia - is in part the result of poor policy decisions made before either of you were born."

Meanwhile, you don't want to address the possibility that Islamic extremism in Indonesia (like the extremism we find in the rest of the Islamic world -- everywhere) is part and parcel of the fundamental nature of the Islamic religion.

Well, Islam is Islam and tigers do not change their stripes. You may remember in historical times that North Africa were populated by Christians with some 600 or so bishops to tend the teeming flocks. Today, you cannot find many Christians in those lands and no bishops at all.

So it will be in Indonesia with some 30 million Christians who will be rooted out of the land just as happened in North Africa. Islam does not coexist with any other culture so the Christians, over time, will be slaughtered or driven out so that Muslims can "live in peace." This pattern has and is repeating itself in all lands that Islam populates. You can see it coming in Egypt and Europe. Sleep on Western civilization and reap your rewards.

"You refuse to read an author because the publisher of his work has a bias? How do you find any non-biased sources -- Krugman is out given Slim's biases, the Post is out given Bezos' biases, etc. You are babbling now."

OK, my reply was a bit compressed.

1. I know Krugman having read him for years and found him reliable, also I have long read the NYT and therefore have a baseline on the various products. Ditto the WP - experience has taught me that Hyatt is a crank on certain things,. I don't know Schindler and having read him I'm not sure he's worth the effort (Lenin to Hammer to Gore to Gore to Clinton to Clinton seems sketchy). What he writes that is in line with other info seems to back up my concerns so I see no added value - at a minimum Putin has manipulated a United States presidential election. My spidy sense tell me that what actually happened is far worse.

2. As for the author-publisher objection: There is such a thing as opportunity cost. Am I likely to invest a chunk of my life in a book by Regnery? The publisher is usually good for a first approximation. For example, a quick scan of Regnery's authors tells the discerning reader that any book with their imprint is likely to leave one knowing less for the time invested.

3. Kushner is a shanda. He has thrown his lot in with Nazis, racists, nativists, and grifters - I'm not likely to become a regular reader of the Observer.

"Meanwhile, you don't want to address the possibility that Islamic extremism in Indonesia (like the extremism we find in the rest of the Islamic world -- everywhere) is part and parcel of the fundamental nature of the Islamic religion."

If you mean that there is a vicious circle in socially conservative/traditionalist societies and a religion with too many fundamentalists I'll agree. That, in fact, was sort of my point. We were obsessed with fighting Godless, atheistic Communism everywhere to the exclusion of other considerations so we backed a junta that killed a half-million or so folks who were nominally Muslim but not Islamists thereby leaving a vacuum.

The world would obviously be a better place had some 18th century sheik cried out, "will no one rid me of this troublesome imam" and had Qutb been strangled in his crib but if Islam is innately impervious to change then the solution is obvious but impossible. When one arrives at an impossible solution then one best check ones premises.

Paul - Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell are about to get a terrible lesson in linearity. Watch and learn.

Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell are about to get a terrible lesson in linearity. Watch and learn.

Heh. Perhaps. Trump may be able to get Ryan out as Speaker - if he is willing to expend a large amount of capital. He might even be able to get Ryan out of office in 2 years, if he can still remember in 2 years that he holds a grudge against Ryan. I tend to doubt that Trump can pack enough punch to do something that really matters to Ryan so as to sufficiently "punish" him for having some spine. Unless Trump plans to become a two-bit dictator, he cannot repeal Obamacare (or most of the rest of his agenda) without support on the Hill. Which will dwindle pretty quickly if he doesn't deal with Congress as a partner rather than as a wayward child.

The claim "salvation is only found in Jesus" is obviously not an insult to Islam, because, according to Quran, "Jesus is 'a word from God'" (*), and your sentence reads "salvation is only found in 'a word from God'". It's merely a grammatically odd sentence, since God has many other Words, and Jesus is not *the* word of God, he is just one of the many.

(*) "…O Mary! Behold, God gives you good news of a word from Him, who shall become known as the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary..." (Quran 3:45)

O.K., how do you feel about what the Christian Governor of Jakarta said -- was that an insult to Islam? More importantly, what if I did say something that was offensive to Islamic sensibilities (e.g. Mohammad was a bloodthirsty tyrant or the Quran is a lie) -- why should that matter at all?

I do not know what the governor of Jakarta said, but if you say that about the prophet, I'd say it is just your opinion, and since we do not know the conditions during his life exactly, I'd say it is not supported by evidence. Many things about him are recorded much later and he is not personally responsible for what his "followers" did any more than Jesus can be held responsible for what Spanish invaders of America did to the native americans in the name of 'God'. Similarly the claim that he was married to a 9 years old is traced to a 70~ years old man (whose name I do not remember at the moment), the health of the memory of whom at that age is quite doubtful. In addition, a claim of being a 'bloodthirsty tyrant' is an insult when applied to anybody, and unless your subject is Genghis Khan then it is not proven or justified. The Bible is quite a poetic piece of writing, and many misunderstandings about Jesus can be traced back to this fact, trinity being an example. It is quite obvious that he has stated 'I am the way and the truth' or something like that, "I" being a pronoun that refers to 'word of God'. Quran is quite different in this aspect, and is intended to be a lot clearer, but still, many people can manage to misunderstand it. In fact this is a fact admitted by Quran itself. It is intentional. Only the sincere can understand it correctly (you can find this statement in Quran) God intended it that way to lead wicked people astray so that the "goats" are distinguished from the "good sheep" (I am using the terminology of the Bible expecting it to be familiar to you). So do not complain that there are many violent or wicked people among those who call themselves "muslims", as the book works as intended. Many are guided to the right path but many are lead astray. That's the way the book is intended to work. Only the wicked are lead astray. If you read the Quran you'll see that these facts are already stated in it. I do not remember the verse numbers and you can verify these things yourself. So be calm and trust God, he knows what he is doing.

"Many things about him are recorded much later and he is not personally responsible for what his "followers" did any more than Jesus can be held responsible for what Spanish invaders of America did to the native americans in the name of 'God'."

This analogy doesn't hold up because those Spaniards weren't acting Christian when they committed morally wicked acts -- we can look the Bible and what it says about how Christians should conduct their lives and we see that there is a disconnect between the 10 Commandments or Jesus' sermons and the actions of the conquistadors.

On the other hand, when we look directly at the Quran, we discover the following (from Islam 101 at "Jihad Watch"):

Orthodox Islam does not accept that a rendering of the Quran into another language is a “translation” in the way that, say, the King James Bible is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. A point often made by Islamic apologists to defang criticism is that only Arabic readers may understand the Quran. But Arabic is a language like any other and fully capable of translation. Indeed, most Muslims are not Arabic readers. In the below analysis, we use a translation of the Quran by two Muslim scholars, which may be found here. All parenthetical explanations in the text are those of the translators save for my interjections in braces, { }.

Those Westerners who manage to pick up a translation of the Quran are often left bewildered as to its meaning thanks to ignorance of a critically important principle of Quranic interpretation known as “abrogation.” The principle of abrogation — al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) — directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate” — i.e., cancel and replace — earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:

2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

It seems that 2:106 was revealed in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah’s revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad’s rebuttal was that “Allah is able to do all things” — even change his mind. To confuse matters further, though the Quran was revealed to Muhammad sequentially over some twenty years’ time, it was not compiled in chronological order. When the Quran was finally collated into book form under Caliph Uthman, the suras were ordered from longest to shortest with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or to their thematic content. In order to find out what the Quran says on a given topic, it is necessary to examine the other Islamic sources that give clues as to when in Muhammad’s lifetime the revelations occurred. Upon such examination, one discovers that the Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.

Let us take, for example, 50:45 and Sura 109, both revealed in Mecca:

50:45. We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur’an, him who fears My Threat.109:1. Say (O Muhammad to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): “O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar {divine foreordainment and sustaining of all things}, etc.)!
109:2. “I worship not that which you worship,
109:3. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:4. “And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.
109:5. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:6. “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).”

Then there is this passage revealed just after the Muslims reached Medina and were still vulnerable:

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

In contrast, take 9:5, commonly referred to as the “Verse of the Sword”, revealed toward the end of Muhammad’s life:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Having been revealed later in Muhammad?s life than 50:45, 109, and 2:256, the Verse of the Sword abrogates their peaceful injunctions in accordance with 2:106. Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme:

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

The Quran’s commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet’s career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a “religion of peace.”

Cherry picking is not a good way to understand the book, those who wish to understand should read the book from cover to cover, again and again:

[Q. 73:4] ...Or a little more. And read the Quran from cover to cover.

[Q. 56:79] None can grasp it except the sincere.

When you do this, you will notice a message that is steadfastly repeated that cannot be overriden by any man made rule or principle.

Then pick up Luke, and read it. You'll notice a similarity and it is openly declared by God as follows:

[Q. 2:146] Those who received the scripture recognize the truth herein, as they recognize their own children. Yet, some of them conceal the truth, knowingly.

After you do this, you'll know the answer to your questions, I could type them verse by verse, then you could cherry pick other verses, and this argument could go on forever. It would be a waste of time.

Thanks again for engaging. What is interesting about your response is that when you say, "...you will notice a message that is steadfastly repeated that cannot be overriden by any man made rule or principle" you seem to imply that it should be clear to a sincere believer that Islam is a religion of peace and/or Muslims are wrong to take offense at ignorant infidels, etc. The problem, of course, is that throughout history, beginning with Muhammad's own life and soon after his death, this is not how Islam's followers have behaved.

I certainly hope that more and more Muslims take your path in the future (on their way to finding the truth in Christ) but I remain skeptical that this is going to happen any time soon.

[2:177] Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves; and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous.

This verse describes *how* to achieve peace. Similar verses are found in almost every sura of the Quran. You can see the same statement in a bit more poetic form in several places in the Bible. The poetic descriptions in the Bible confuse people in some way, and the literal style of Quran confuse people in some other way. It sounds so literal and simple that they assume they do not need to use their brains. There is even a verse about that:

[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

Unfortunately, there isn't much can be done about the problem, because understanding requires effort and many are not willing to spend the time to study and just listen what their imams, priests and pastors tell them, instead (- that was the past, nowadays they prefer the vain talking media, I guess). Here is a warning:

[2:170] When they are told, "Follow what GOD has revealed herein," they say, "We follow only what we found our parents doing." What if their parents did not understand, and were not guided?

This warning applies to everybody, including muslims themselves. Needless to say, it also applies to members of other religions. Preaching peace is one thing, doing what it takes to achieve it is quite another. While you are preaching hymns to Jesus in the church, there is a crazy world outside that is investing in useless waste in various forms. Everybody has a responsibility in the problem. While your military industrial complex is builing weapons, those in S.Arabia are building luxuious tall towers to heaven, and then they get surprized that they are not getting the results they "want". What do they think they'll get, "grace" in return, just because somebody has died for the world's sins some 2000 years ago? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

World is getting to be a complex and crowded place and as the sources of the problems get more obscure, and being rightous in the sense of Q2:170 will get more difficult each day, and they are still talking about the fact that global warming may get to be irreversible. I hope there aren't many other irreversible problems.

”World is getting to be a complex and crowded place and as the sources of the problems get more obscure, “.

“The source of problems” in the context of this exchange is the same as it has been for the past 1300 years, namely, the monstrously hateful tenets of the koran and the example how to follow them set out by the “prophet” Muhammad. The bloody line leading from sadist muhammad’s horrific crimes; mass murders, rapes, pillage, robberies runs unabatedly toward today’s ISIS.

You are full of "taqyiah", Ahmed.
As your “holy book” says : "We smile in the face of them although our hearts curse them."

That is exactly what you are doing here. You are a good muhammedan, indeed.

“The source of problems” in the context of this exchange is the same as it has been for the past 1300 years, namely, the monstrously hateful tenets of the koran and the example how to follow them set out by the “prophet” Muhammad. The bloody line leading from sadist muhammad’s horrific crimes; mass murders, rapes, pillage, robberies runs unabatedly toward today’s ISIS.

Hi,

As far as I can see these have been the same for about several thousand years, and the message from God has been the same:

To Moses: Keep the 10 commandments.
To Jesus: Read Matthew 16:24, Matthew 19:24, Luke 10:27
To Muhammad: Q2:177 is repeated in various forms in every sura. The 10 commandments, the sabbath being an exception, are found scattered through the book, embedded in places where it makes sense to mention them.

The world's response to these appears to be consistent. In each case, it does not appear to be better than the memory of a goldfish.

As for 'taqyiah', it looks like another made made rule. I do remember a verse that allows lies to save one's life, and that's about it. But when I google for it, I find its application to be stretched beyond imagination.

As for a few more examples of goldfish-like behavior, have a look at Q.81:8

[81:8] The girl who was buried alive is asked:

[81:9] For what crime was she killed?

This is the behavior of the community Muhammad had to deal with. I guess it took more than turning your other cheek to deal with the problem. Now the goldfish is asking, why he wasn't so peaceful. Well, God had previously send one Mr.Turn Your Other Cheek, and he was nailed to the cross, don't you remember?

Ahmed,
What a cavalcade of red herrings. One doesn't know where to start...

As for 'taqyiah', it looks like another made made rule. I do remember a verse that allows lies to save one's life, and that's about it. But when I google for it, I find its application to be stretched beyond imagination.

More taqyiah! In fact taqyiah about taqyiah.

Who cares what it “looks like” to you, or how far “beyond imagination” does google stretch it?
Wouldn’t Sunna where lying to the Infidel is recommended and shia islam where it is duty a better source?

“This is the behavior of the community Muhammad had to deal with. I guess it took more than turning your other cheek to deal with the problem. Now the goldfish is asking, why he wasn't so peaceful. Well, God had previously send one Mr.Turn Your Other Cheek, and he was nailed to the cross, don't you remember?”

He didn’t deal with it – he unreservedly joined it and eagerly embraced all its vices, indeed multiplied, strengthened, perfected and carried them to new heights of most horrific cruelty and inhumanity. Indeed he codified the horror and personally practiced murder, lie, rape, torture and host of other monstrosities. One must admit he did practice what he preached.

”Now the goldfish is asking, why he wasn't so peaceful."

Am I asking “why he wasn’t so peaceful”? Where did you get that strange idea?

If I’ve never asked why Ted Bundy, or dr. Mengele, or Charles Manson weren’t “so peaceful” what would make me enquire about the reason for Mohammed savagery? Really, how different is Mohammad from these monsters? I could of course say “he wasn’t so peaceful” because of his sadism, sexual perversion, greed, lust, but that would be an exercise in tautology.

“Well, God had previously send one Mr.Turn Your Other Cheek, and he was nailed to the cross, don't you remember?”

Of course I remember. How could I forget that His Crucifixion paid for my sins and gave me life eternal? Silly question…

But if you believe it was your god, not the Devil, who sent one Mr. Murder-Rape-Rob-Torture to crucify, behead and burn alive the Kafir, to genocide and enslave nations and destroy civilizations then you need to explain what is the difference between the two.
Well, actually don’t bother. It’s rather boring to try to read new taqiyah heaped on top of the old one.

It was obvious that this discussion would lost its reasonability sooner or later. Therefore I do not wish to discuss it anymore.

Sorry if some statements of mine were unacceptable to you, but so were yours, equally unacceptable to me, if not harsher. You still continue in the same way, but I will not. I'll stop that line of discussion and stress an obvious source of misunderstanding, instead.

Do not judge Islam by the behavior of muslims. Muslims, the people, are not better than others. They are just human beings who made a lot of mistakes, like others. It is my understanding that it couldn't have been any other way. "God's cause" (you'll see that phrase used in many verses in Quran) is to distinguish good people from evil ones. Honest people understand this and the path or the task it would take to achieve that objective. The mission was not achieved when Jesus was crucified. Sorry about pointing out the obvious.

Jeffrey, with respect, I think there's a flaw in your argument. Your position seems to be something akin to :

(1) Indonesia was supposed to be a moderate Muslim-majority nation,
(2) There is radicalization occurring in Indonesia,
(3) Thus, moderate Islam does not exist.

You need to connect the dots more specifically in order to make the point you're trying to make.

Here's an analogy: There are millions of conservatives in California, but you wouldn't know it by reading political news stories about the State of California. Should we just pretend that Californian conservatives don't exist, just because they don't have control of the government, the academic institutions, or the press? Is "Californian conservatism" a myth? These people are unicorns?

For my part, I can tell you that I have heard people from Muslim-majority nations speak to me firsthand, and straight from their mouths they have stated in no uncertain terms: They are terrified of militant religious conservatism and they do not want it to spread. What are they, chopped liver?

RPLong, there are varieties of non-moderate-ness in Islam. For example, one would find that many who repudiate *terrorism* are nonetheless in favor of *sharia*. In particular, it is interesting that a law against "insulting Islam" has apparently been on the books for an indefinite time in the past in "moderate" Indonesia and was not considered incompatible with such "moderation." Now, there is nothing particularly fringy about such a law. It's a normal part of sharia, which is a central aspect of Islam. The only issue is apparently whether or not it's kind of left quietly to one side and scarcely ever actually enforced. But I think you'd be surprised at how many Muslims who are "moderate" when it comes to, say, ISIS, are not so moderate when it comes to having laws against blasphemy or having laws against Christian missions or making it extremely hard in law to convert. (For example, I believe that it is in Malaysia, another allegedly moderate country, that a person who converts to Christianity has a huge amount of trouble getting ID documents changed so that he is permitted to marry a Christian.)

Lydia, to clarify: I'm talking about real people that I actually know, whose beliefs I am very familiar with. I'm not talking about hypothetical people who, according to Pew Research, skew toward beliefs in what Americans call "Sharia law." I'm talking about people who, over the course of 40-50 years have observed varying degrees of Islamic extremism and who are opposed to it. Real, intelligent, free-thinking Muslim people who by our American standards would qualify as center-right on economic issues and center-left on social issues.

These people see what's going on in their countries, and they do not like it. I'm comparing them to Republicans in California, who must surely oppose the hundred-billion-dollar debt that state now has, and who oppose many of the social policy laws there just like Republicans in the United States more broadly.

The comparison here is apt: There are millions of such Muslims, regardless of whether they make up an arithmetic majority or if they happen to influence any of the major social or political institutions. Am I supposed to pretend that they don't exist?

If they reject sharia *entirely*, including the ban on conversion, blasphemy, etc., and do not want it instituted in any country, then their relationship to Islam is analogous to the relationship of nominal "Christians" who, say, deny the deity of Jesus Christ and hold that Christian truth-claims are not objectively true to orthodox Christianity. Now, some people think that we should encourage the growth of this kind of nominal Islam, as it would make the world a safer place. I'm not that much of a pragmatist, because I don't believe in deceiving people. It would not be honest for me to teach someone that such nominal Islam is consistent with the teachings of Mohammad or with historic Islam as it was from the outset, so I won't do it. Better for them just to deconvert openly.

When statistical research is done well and responsibly, it tells us about the beliefs of real people, not hypothetical people. Your individual, personal friendships cannot actually tell you that there are "millions" of self-identified Muslims who entirely reject all the objectionable aspects of Islam, including sharia.

Lydia, I see what you're saying: You're saying that nothing is capable of altering your position in the slightest. That's fair. Luckily, my original comment was intended for Jeffrey, and I'll let him answer it. He and I have already thoroughly discussed the notion of "sharia" versus "fiqh," and you are welcome to research those terms on your own.

You're right that I don't know millions of Muslims. But I do know hundreds. Do you think you'd change your mind if you knew hundreds of Muslims whose real lives and real experiences didn't match up with your last two comments?

1) As I said to our very reasonable and by all indications moderate Muslim commenter Mr. Khalifa, from the beginning Islam has been a violent and...aggressive religion when it comes to the question of conversion and living with non-believers and/or apostates. What worries me about a country like Indonesia is that it seems to have developed a unique type of Islam (that was relatively peaceful) only to now slowly go back to a more 'pure' version of the religion -- one that you and your moderate friends call "militant religious conservatism." Islam seems to be a religion that moves its adherents in one way -- toward 'purity' and extremism.

2) In California, to greatly simplify things, we can say there are two types of political people -- liberals and conservatives -- and right now, liberals wield power. But that doesn't negate the fact that there might be a different political viewpoint that doesn't have power -- this is true for governments from the beginning of man as a political animal. For your analogy to hold, we'd have to assume that Islam has always been divided into "moderates" and "militant religious conservatives" and that both have been in and out of power. As Lydia points out though, what you consider a "moderate" in Islam is different than what a modern Westerner living under a republican or monarchical/ parliamentary constitutional order would consider moderate. Again, throughout most of Islamic history the so-called moderates (and the so-called Islamic Golden Age) were actually pretty brutal and tough on religious minorities and/or apostates. They also weren't big fans of humanistic thought and science (except for their early contributions which were later considered dangerous by the Ash’arites and their anti-rationalist thinking.) So Islam doesn't really map well onto the political comparison.

3) Finally, it can certainly be true that you know many Muslims -- even hundreds -- that embrace modernity and a Western way of life. Indeed, I suspect that part of the problem with our Afghan and Iraq adventures was that Americans like you were listening to those in the Muslim world who wanted nothing more than to live 'normal' Western lives. The problem is that the Pew surveys Lydia cites tell a real story -- just as the descent into chaos and violent in Afghanistan and Iraq tell a real story. Until millions of people in Muslim countries (i.e. the vast majority) are willing to either change fundamental Muslim doctrine or convert to Christianity, your friends will remain a small minority. I think their situation is tragic, but I'm not sure there is much we can do for them other than prayer and mission work.

We're in agreement on your point #1, and I can tell you that Muslims I know would also agree.

Regarding your Point #2, you say: " For your analogy to hold, we'd have to assume that Islam has always been divided into "moderates" and "militant religious conservatives" and that both have been in and out of power." Indeed, that has been precisely the case in some Muslim-majority countries. I'm less familiar with Indonesia, but I can cite Pakistan and Bangladesh as possible examples of modern Muslim-majority nations that have alternately elected Muslim hard-liners and moderates, depending on the election.

Regarding your Point #3, I have to present another analogy: about 50% of the voting age population abstained from voting in the most recent election. To read the news, though, you'd be inclined to believe that the US political landscape consists of a 50-50 split of deeply divided people. In reality, there is a 25-25 split of deeply divided people and the remaining 50% are moderates who feel no strong affiliation for either political party. So: the story that the US is a deeply divided and polarized country that must move to the center somehow to reduce political quagmire and bad feelings is common media narrative that does not at all reflect the reality in your country. ---> Wouldn't you admit that it is at least possible for this to be true also in Muslim-majority countries?

Lydia, I see what you're saying: You're saying that nothing is capable of altering your position in the slightest.

Islam, like Christianity, is an historical religion. Its doctrine cannot be altered by fiat, nor is it a mere vague ethnic identity. That isn't me being impervious to evidence. It's a fact about what religions are and what this particular religion is.

I don't think you quite understand my theological and historical point. Could there be hundreds of Muslims who are, to Islam, as deity-of-Christ-denying mainline Episcopalians are to Christianity? Sure. Do I consider said Episcopalians to be actual Christians? Nope. And the same mutatis mutandis for the nominal Muslims. And more: What will happen if the Episcopalians go to a revival meeting, accept Jesus as personal Savior, and become real Christians? Probably only good things. What will happen if the Episcopalian-style Muslims get revival and get real Islam? That's what we call "radicalization," and it isn't a good thing.

Lydia, please have some charity. I've understood your point all along. I'm offering a rejoinder, and that rejoinder is as follows: What matters more with respect to human behavior is not how you define it from your seat as a student of history, but rather how a religion is actually practiced in the real world by real people.

The notion here is that "moderate Islam doesn't exist." You seem to think you can prove this by narrowly defining Islam as anything that isn't moderate. QED. This is an obvious and elementary fallacy. Jeffrey says "There are no moderate Muslims." I say, "Actually, I know hundreds of them, and I'm just one guy." You say, "There are no moderates who are truly Muslims!"

It's called a No True Scotsman, and in other words, no number of real-world Muslims living how they live is enough to convince you that moderate Islam exists. In other words, yes, all the hundreds of people I know, and the hundreds of people they know (now we're up to thousands with only one degree of separation) are pretty much chopped liver because in your opinion the only real Muslim is an extremist.

RPLong. I will go with Erdogan's definition of Islam. There is no radical Islam. There is no moderate Islam. There is just Islam. He is a keen observer of what is going on in Islam today. He has tried to run the Israel blockade of Muslim ships trying to bring in contraband to the Gaza strip. He is threatening to ship young jihadi warriors into Germany. But mostly, he is dragging Turkey back into the realm of Islam with him as dear dictator leader.

Islam has been waging perpetual jihad against the non-Muslim world for some 1,400 years. Not all Muslims join the jihad but they are mandated to do so by their Koran, Sira and Haditha. So those who join in the jihad could be called radical by some people and those that stay home could be called moderate by other people. Most Muslims do not read or speak Arabic so many of them are ignorant of what is actually in the Koran. They do what the imams tell them to do. Lets not argue about what the politics of Islam might be. Lets just understand that they are in America to colonize and replace our Constitution with shariah law and eventually dominate us as part of their global jihad.

We need to understand the threat of Islam and step up to the war that Islam has declared against us.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):